[tei-council] FAND faces setback

Lou Burnard lou.burnard at computing-services.oxford.ac.uk
Wed Feb 8 15:47:56 EST 2006

James Cummings wrote:

> Lou Burnard wrote:
>>Unfortunately (or not) just removing div0... div7 isn't the end of the
>>affair. The content models for body, front, back also need attention,
>>not to say radical simplification.
>>Can someone meantime remind me what the proposed "empty class" solution
>>was all about?
> My memory is that this solution proposed replacing the numbered divs in all
> content models with classes.  So instead of allowing div1 you'd allow div1Like
> (or whatever).  However, while that class would be created it would have no
> members, hence, be 'empty'.
> The benefits of this is that unless one specifically adds in numbered divs, then
> they do not exist.  However, to add in a numbered div all you need to do is add
> an element name to the div1Like class.  Moreover, when you are doing so, you'll
> scratch your head and say "If I want to limit sections to be inside chapters,
> why am I calling these div1 and div2? Why don't I give them much more sensible
> names, like chapter and section?".  And so although you may add elements to
> div1Like and div2Like etc., in order to have a content model which constrains
> their placement, they will have much more sensible names at least.
> Or have I misremembered this suggestion?
> -James

I see how introducing these classes might help address the concerns of 
those who want to be able to tell from the name of an element what its 
hierarchic position is. I don't see how that helps with the fact that if 
  the topmost classes (div0 or div1 as was) are empty you will wind up 
with a non-deterministic content model.

The second problem seems to me more serious.

More information about the tei-council mailing list